2016 Water-Rhetoric Year whines on

Submitted: Apr 07, 2016
By: 
Badlands Journal editorial board

 Westlands Water District is complaining about the Bureau of Reclamation announcement of a 5-percent water allotment for the year. Putting aside that this will most likely increase as the 2016 Water-Rhetoric Year wars on. -- blj

 

“We cannot permit Westlands to transform itself from heavily subsidized corporate farms into a water broker at the expense of taxpayers and the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary,” said Barrigan-Parrilla. -- Lloyd Carter, Chronicles of the Hydraulic Brotherhood, July 27, 2015.

 

 

4-2-16

Western Farm Press

USBR shorts some California farmers irrigation water

San Joaquin Valley farmers angry with federal government's latest decision

Todd Fitchette 

http://westernfarmpress.com/irrigation/usbr-shorts-some-california-farmers-irrigation-water

Some federal water contractors in California were outraged on April 1 when the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) drew a hard line at the Delta, giving those north of it a full allotment of irrigation water and those south of it little to none.

This year’s “miracle March” will give all northern California water users 100 percent of their requested Central Valley Project (CVP) allocations while limiting south-of-the-Delta users to 5 percent.

Two districts that draw water from New Melones Reservoir near Sonora – the Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District and Stockton East Water District – will receive a zero allocation from the CVP because the USBR says water levels at New Melones remain too low.

In an ironic move, the USBR also said Friday that it would begin pulse flows from the same watershed into the Stanislaus River for fish restoration projects, even though New Melones remains at 25 percent of capacity.

While better than the zero allocation San Joaquin Valley growers received in each of the last two years from agency that controls much of the water in the West, the fact that those in the north received a full allotment made growers and water officials alike irate over the decision.

What this means for growers along the west side of California’s San Joaquin Valley is very little surface water is available to grow crops America’s most prolific growing region.

 

 

 

 

 

Reaction

Shaun Ramirez, a former grower from the Mendota area of Fresno County lost his farm, his agricultural business and his home after 2009 when the USBR began curtailing surface water to area farms.

At the time Ramirez was farming about 2,500 acres of melons in Westlands Water District when the USBR cut his water supply to 25 percent of normal. He now works for a farming company in Madera and hopes one day to return to farming, though he sounds skeptical given the state of water availability in the state.

“I dream to be able to farm again someday,” Ramirez says.

Buddy Mendes is another west side farmer who watched his allotment of Westlands Water District surface irrigation dwindle to nothing in the face of water woes that can no longer be blamed on climatic drought conditions.

“This decision is about social engineering,” Mendes said of the 5 percent allocation.

Mendes, who currently serves as the chairman of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, has farmed the Westside for 20 years, including 35 years in the greater Riverdale area of Fresno County. He says he’s never seen conditions this bad.

Mendes blames environmental laws and biological opinions that forced the idling of Delta pumps that move water into San Luis Reservoir. Those decisions, he says, have been used by those who oppose agriculture to cause great harm to the industry.

“There is no truth in any of the biological opinions anymore,” Mendes said of the methods used by the agencies to defend the lack of water deliveries to agriculture.

“When you have 1.5 million acre feet of water going out to the ocean in the month of March alone this is no longer an issue of drought,” Mendes said.

 

 

 

 

 

Water supplies

The USBR announcement laid out water delivery allocations as follows:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Everyone north of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta region and the one water district within the Delta will receive 100 percent of their allotments;

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Wildlife refuges north and south of the Delta will receive 100 percent;

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Municipal and industrial contractors south of the Delta will receive 55 percent of their allotments; and,

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Agricultural contractors south of the Delta will receive 5 percent.

This does not include the San Joaquin River Exchange and Settlement Contractors, who have senior water rights and will receive 100 percent of their allocations for the first time in three years.

Steve Chedester, executive director of the Los Banos-based Exchange Contractors, said growers in the district will receive 840,000 acre feet of irrigation water to be spread over 230,000 acres of farmland.

Last year Exchange Contractors received 52 percent of their contracted water allotment. In 2014 that figure was 65 percent. This is noteworthy not only because such low allocations had never happened in the history of the Exchange Contractors, but because the contract they have with the federal government stipulates a minimum allocation of 75 percent.

State water conditions range from slightly below average to full, depending on location.

Shasta Lake – the state’s largest reservoir and the cornerstone of the federal Central Valley Project – is nearly full. April 1 storage in Shasta Lake exceeded 4 MAF; capacity of the large reservoir is 4.55 MAF.

Meanwhile, San Luis Reservoir, a critical south-of-Delta pool for both the SWP and CVP, was holding at about 1 MAF or about half of its capacity.

Water officials say San Luis Reservoir would be full by now had Delta pumping been ramped up to capacity levels during recent high river flows. That was not allowed to happen because the fish agencies feigned fish deaths had the pumps been operated at maximum allowable capacity.

Another success story from the recent rain and snow: Folsom Lake, a CVP reservoir near Sacramento, rose to over 70 percent of its 977,000 acre-foot capacity before the USBR released 25,000 acre feet for flood control measures.

 

Water sham

Johnny Amaral, deputy general manager for external affairs with Westlands Water District points to the contrast between the 5 percent his district will receive and the 100 percent north-of-the-Delta contractors will receive as “the best argument we have to prove that these decisions are no longer related to drought.”

Amaral called the federal government’s decision “ridiculous but entirely predictable.”

“No one can stand behind the drought anymore, not when you look at California and see that everyone north of the Delta will receive 100 percent and those of us south of the Delta get 5 percent,” Amaral continued.

For the 600,000-acre Westlands Water District that means the 238,000 acres of fallowed land will continue to grow.

“They’re deliberately trying to choke this area off of its water,” Amaral says.

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority Executive Director Jason Peltier was angry with the Bureau’s decision.

"We are furious with today’s allocation announcement,” Peltier said in a prepared statement. “At a time when water supplies have returned to normal and the major reservoirs are in flood control operations, the federal fishery agencies continue to hoard water instead of using a balanced approach that includes water for productive California farms and businesses and many of its people.”

Peltier continued: "Mother nature has given us all the water we need. There is no question that failed regulations imposed on Reclamation are not achieving their intended goals as the extreme limitations on moving water to farms and cities has had no measurable benefit to the fisheries. President Roosevelt started building this great water project 80 years ago. The mismanagement of it over the last 20 years has crippled its ability to serve thousands of California farms, people in urban areas, as well as our rural economy.”

 

 

 

 

 

Friant Water

Friant Division contractors will see at least 30 percent of their Class 1 allotment this year, based on early figures from the USBR and improved conditions at Millerton Lake and the San Joaquin River watershed.

Class 1 water is the first 800,000 acre feet of storage behind Friant Dam.

Additionally, Friant water users will receive an “uncontrolled season” supply of 100,000 acre feet plus an additional 85,000 acre feet of unreleased San Joaquin River Restoration flows. These will be scheduled for delivery between May 1 and May 15 to avert flood management concerns, according to the USBR.

Jason Phillips, chief executive officer with Friant Water Authority (FWA) said there is an estimated 1.4 million acre feet of water stored in the San Joaquin River watershed in the form of snow.

Stephen Ottemoeller, water resources manager for FWA, told directors at the agency’s March 24 meeting that there was a better-than-average chance that the Class 1 allocation could rise above 50 percent and may, in the right conditions, be a full allotment.

 

7-27-15

Chronicles of the Hydraulic Brotherhood

Retiring Toxic CA Farmland Better Deal Than Tunnels

Lloyd Carter

http://www.lloydgcarter.com/content/150722678_retiring-toxic-ca-farmland-better-deal-than-tunnels

SPECIAL REPORT: <!--[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]--><!--[if !vml]-->tunnels map<!--[endif]-->
Retiring Toxic Farmland in Western San Joaquin Valley Would Save Water, Environment and Taxpayer Money

Land retirement 25x cheaper than Tunnel plan and could save 450,000 acre-feet of water

Sacramento, CA – A new report by EcoNorthwest, an independent economic analysis firm, estimates that 300,000 acres of toxic land in the Westlands Water District and three adjacent water districts could be retired at a cost of $580 million to $1 billion.

Retiring this land and curbing the water rights associated with it would result in a savings to California of up to 455,000 acre-feet of water – for reference, the City of Los Angeles uses 587,000 acre-feet in a typical year. This course of action also is significantly less expensive than Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to build a massive tunnel system to divert water from the Sacramento River for the benefit of corporate agribusiness.

Food & Water Watch, the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) and Restore the Delta are calling on the Obama administration to retire up to 300,000 acres of selenium-tainted land and reduce the annual supply of water in the San Luis Unit, which includes parts of Westlands, San Luis, Panoche and Pacheco water districts, by 455,000 acre-feet. (This water is typically pumped from the San Francisco Bay Delta via the federal controlled Central Valley Project.) The Delta is suffering from poor water quality because of the removal of fresh water to irrigate water-intensive crops such as almonds and pistachios in the Westlands Water District, located on the hot and dry western side of the San Joaquin Valley.

“California needs to balance water demands with the realities of its supply, which means retiring inappropriate farmland,” said Adam Scow, California Director at Food & Water Watch. “Retiring toxic farmland in Westlands is a commonsense step toward protecting our overstretched and dwindling water supply.”

The report comes as the Obama administration and Westlands engage in secret negotiations over the fate of this toxic land; central to the discussions is millions of dollars in debt owed by Westlands to U.S. taxpayers for the faulty and incomplete construction of the Central Valley Project, which supplies water to the district.

The disastrous consequences of industrial-scale cultivation of seleniferous lands became obvious in 1983, when thousands of migratory waterfowl were deformed or killed outright at Kesterson Wildlife Refuge due to deliveries of toxic drain water from Westlands Water District megafarms.

A recent draft settlement revealed that the Obama administration has proposed guaranteeing Westlands nearly 900,000 acre-feet of water per year for fifty years, while letting the district off the hook for $365 million of its debt. The proposed deal would provide for the continued irrigation of more than 250,000 acres of selenium-tainted lands, allowing toxic runoff to continue plaguing the San Joaquin River and the Bay-Delta/Estuary. A final settlement proposal is expected soon. The Environmental Working Group estimated that annual subsidies to Westlands range from $24 million to $110 million a year.

“Discharge into the San Joaquin River harms Bay-Delta drinking water supplies, family farms, fish and wildlife,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla of Restore the Delta. “Everyone knows land retirement will need to happen eventually because there will come a point where the drainage-impaired lands will become unfarmable.”

The three groups noted that the retirement of these poisoned lands and the “paper water” that goes with them would greatly reduce the toxic drainage currently poisoning the San Joaquin River and the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary.

Along with retiring the land, the groups are calling on Governor Brown and the State Water Board to stop the “paper water” claims that run with the land – the disparity that exists between water rights claims and water that actually exists. Currently, the State Water Resources Control Board has allocated water rights claims that exceed available water from the Delta watershed by a factor of five.

“The retirement must be accompanied by a proportional reduction in water contract amounts,” said Tom Stokely of C-WIN. “UC Davis has demonstrated that California water demands are vastly out of balance with the realities of our supply: it’s no more than ‘paper water.’ To guarantee Westlands a fifty-year water supply, as the current settlement does, would be an unfair and irresponsible giveaway to heavily-subsidized, corporate farms in Westlands.”

In a previous land retirement deal, Westlands’ water supply allocation was not reduced. A concern shared by the three groups is that under the deal, corporate farms might sell their taxpayer-subsidized water for private profit at the expense of the environment.

“We cannot permit Westlands to transform itself from heavily subsidized corporate farms into a water broker at the expense of taxpayers and the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary,” said Barrigan-Parrilla.

In addition, given the likelihood that land retirement would eliminate farm jobs tied to that land, the three groups recommend that those farmworkers be compensated fairly for their losses and that public funds be made available for that purpose.

As leading opponents to Governor Jerry Brown’s proposal to build massive tunnels to divert the Sacramento River, the groups emphasized the cost savings to Californians represented by retiring these toxic lands.

“Spending one billion dollars to take these selenium-laced, unsustainable lands out of production and cutting the water rights that go with them saves Californians water money,” said Scow of Food & Water Watch. “Retiring these west side lands makes a lot more sense than spending $67 billion to build Governor Brown’s outdated tunnels to support corporate agribusiness. 

 

9-17-15

Yubanet.com

Groups Slam Sweetheart Settlement for Westlands Water District

By: Dan Bacher

http://yubanet.com/california/Groups-Slam-Sweetheart-Settlement-for-Westlands-Water-District.php#.Vf3NI_lVhBc

September 17, 2015 - Remember the powerful Westlands Water District, the organization that has sued the federal government every summer over the past three years in unsuccessful attempts to stop supplemental releases from Trinity Reservoir to prevent a massive fish kill on the lower Klamath River? 

Well, the same Obama Administration that Westlands sued to block desperately needed flows for salmon and steelhead signed a binding agreement today with the powerful water district, located on the arid and dusty west side of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Conservation groups blasted the settlement for guaranteeing the district vast amounts of Sacramento and Trinity River water to keep irrigating toxic, drainage-impaired soils filled with selenium and other toxic salts. 

In a statement, Gayle Holman of the Westlands Water District announced that the U.S. Department of Justice and Westlands Water District have approved a legal settlement, that, if approved by Congress, would "end a decades-long dispute over the Bureau of Reclamation’s responsibility to provide drainage for the farmland within Westlands." (
http://mavensnotebook.com/2015/09/15/this-just-in-westlands-water-distri...

"It provides a fair and equitable solution for Westlands’ landowners who lost the productive use of their land caused by Reclamation’s failure to provide drainage services to those lands, while at the same time providing a cost savings of approximately $3.5 billion to the United States," according to Holman. 

She said the drainage settlement requires Westlands to "assume full responsibility for drainage management within its boundaries." Under the agreement: 

• Westlands will be required to retire a minimum of 100,000 acres of land and to repurpose the non-irrigated lands for "environmentally friendly" uses. 

• Westlands will be relieved of repayment obligation for prior expenditures by the United States for construction of the Central Valley Project (CVP). 

• The Department of the Interior will oversee Westlands’ management of drainage. 

Finally, "The settlement relieves taxpayers of a liability of approximately $3.5 billion dollars and caps water deliveries to the District at seventy-five percent of its contract amount," said Holman.

Holman also claimed, "The Westlands Water District is"the most productive agricultural land in the U.S., generating $3.5 billion in farm-related economic activities and more than one billion dollars’ worth of food and fiber. Westlands’ 700 family-owned farms feed local communities, California and the nation." 

In response, the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), Food and Water Watch and Restore the Delta issued a joint statement blasting the agreement for settling litigation "over an unfulfilled federal requirement to provide drainage while forgiving Westlands’ debt to U.S. taxpayers with an unconscionable sweetheart deal." 

Rather than relieving the taxpayers of liability, the conservationists said the agreement would in fact increase the federal deficit by $340 million through forgiving Westland’s interest-free repayment obligations to the taxpayers for construction of the federal Central Valley Project. "Westland’s current two-year water contract will be converted to a permanent contract for 890,000 acre-feet of water annually, further draining the Sacramento River watershed and Delta," they said. 

The groups noted that under the agreement, "water would be provided at lower prices, without acreage limits, and with permanent entitlements. These terms will lead to ever-increasing water deficits for California’s communities, economy, and environment." 

“We are outraged that the Obama Administration has sold out California taxpayers and their water,” said Adam Scow, California Director of Food & Water Watch. “This bad deal will allow corporate agribusinesses in Westlands to keep irrigating water-intensive almonds and pistachios on toxic land in the desert, mostly for export to China. We will work to defeat this taxpayer giveaway in Congress.” 

They also criticized the Obama Administration for ignoring previous calls by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and many others to retire over 300,000 acres of poisoned lands. Instead, they said the deal will require only 100,000 acres of land retirement - less than Westlands has already retired voluntarily. 

Environmental groups, Indian Tribes and fishing organizations have frequently slammed Westlands and other corporate agribusiness interests for being big beneficiaries of "corporate welfare" through massive subsidies from the federal and state governments. Annual subsidies to Westlands range from $24 million to $110 million a year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an independent economic analysis firm, estimated. 

"A better plan, outlined recently by EcoNorthwest, found 300,000 acres of toxic land in the Westlands Water District and three adjacent water districts could be retired at a cost of $580 million to $1 billion," said Scow. "Retiring this land and curbing the water rights associated with it would result in a savings to California of up to 455,000 acre-feet of water. For reference, the City of Los Angeles uses 587,000 acre-feet in a typical year." 

Read the EcoNorthwest Report at: 
http://www.econw.com/our-work/publications/estimated-costs-to-retire-drainage-impaired-lands-in-the-san-luis-unit 

Scow also said this course of action would "cost significantly less" than Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to build two massive Delta Tunnels to divert water from the Sacramento River for the benefit of Westlands and other corporate agribusiness interests on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The state and federal governments recently renamed this plan, formerly the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the "California Water Fix." Estimates for the real cost of the project range up to $67 billion. 

"Because most of the poisoned lands will remain available for irrigation, the salt and selenium drainage problem will continue, but the U.S. Government will no longer have any role in its management," Scow noted. 

In fact, critics said the current agreement is worse for the environment and taxpayers than earlier agreements proposed under the Bush administration. 

“Unlike the earlier proposals from the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration is making no demands of any kind as to how that drainage is managed, including no monitoring requirements, no performance standards, no ‘drainage plan’ for review or approval by state authorities, etc.," said Tom Stokely from the California Water Impact Network. "The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board does not require any monitoring for selenium discharges to groundwater, so desert growers in Westlands have been given a free pass to expand the pollution in the aquifers of the Western San Joaquin Valley in perpetuity with cheap water that is desperately needed by people in the source watershed.” 

Stokely said the "disastrous consequences" of industrial-scale cultivation of seleniferous lands became obvious in 1983, when thousands of migratory waterfowl, including ducks and geese, were deformed or killed outright at Kesterson Wildlife Refuge due to deliveries of toxic drain water from Westlands Water District corporate farms. That huge environmental scandal was exposed by Felix Smith, a brave U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist at the time who now serves on the Board of the Save the American River Association (SARA). 

“The diversion of water from the Delta for Westlands Water District has significantly contributed to the destruction of the Delta’s fisheries and water quality for agriculture,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta. “Leaving this land in production will ensure perpetual taxpayer subsidy to agriculture’s wealthiest 1% and continued environmental destruction of fish, wildlife, water quality and air quality from desertification of salty lands. The Obama Administration is making a terrible mistake that will haunt us for generations to come."

Congressman Jerry McNerney (CA-09) also slammed the drainage settlement between Westlands and the federal government that was approved today, calling it a "sweetheart deal." (
https://mcnerney.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-mcnerney-issu...

“This settlement between Westlands Water District and the Department of the Interior is nothing short of alarming," said McNerney. It’s a ‘sweetheart deal’ negotiated without transparency – resulting in an outrageous windfall for Westlands regardless of how much affected land is ultimately retired. The settlement forgives Westlands’ massive $350 million debt owed to the government and taxpayers while giving them an advantageous, no-need-to-review contract that could improve the water deliveries they receive from the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta and further devastate the Delta’s fragile ecosystem." 

Since the drainage agreement between Westlands and the federal government must be approved by Congress, you can expect a big battle by fishing groups, Indian Tribes and environmental organizations and their political allies to block the approval of this settlement. 

Westlands has acquired a reputation among public trust advocates as the "Darth Vader" of California water politics because of the water district's frequent attacks on efforts to save and restore salmon, steelhead, Delta smelt and other imperiled fish populations. 

The Hoopa Valley Tribe, Yurok Tribe, Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources and Department of Interior won a legal victory on August 26 when a federal judge denied a request by Westlands and the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the higher supplemental flows from Trinity Reservoir released in August and September to stop a fish kill on the lower Klamath River. (
https://intercontinentalcry.org/judge-sides-with-hoopa-valley-and-yurok-...

For more information on the history of Westlands Water District, please read Lloyd Carter’s superb Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal article, "Reaping Riches in a Wretched Region: Subsidized Industrial Farming and Its Link to Perpetual Poverty," at:
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&conte...

Background on the Groups: 

The California Water Impact Network (C-WIN, online at
http://www.c-win.org) promotes the just and environmentally sustainable use of California's water, including instream flows and groundwater reserves, through research, planning, media outreach, and litigation. http://www.c-win.org 

Restore the Delta is a 20,000-member grassroots organization committed to making the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta fishable, swimmable, drinkable, and farmable to benefit all of California. Restore the Delta's mission is to save and restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary for our children and future generations.
 
http://www.restorethedelta.org 

Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food and water we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org

 

9-15-15

Sacramento Bee

California farm drainage deal faces Capitol Hill currents

Settlement relieves federal government of irrigation drainage obligation

Congressional approval required for deal to take effect

Agreement gives Congress until January 2017 to act

Michael Doyle

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article35488728.html

WASHINGTON 

A Congress that has stumbled over a California water bill amid record drought now faces a challenging new fight over irrigation drainage.

But this time, some of the state’s most politically powerful farmers have the Obama administration explicitly on their side. Together, they will be seeking approval of a far-reaching settlement that satisfies the Justice Department and Westlands Water District but alarms critics.

“I think after years of frustration, we’ve finally got something done,” Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., said in an interview Wednesday. “It’s a compromise and, like any, there was give and take on both sides.”

In a federal court filing Wednesday, the Justice Department provided both details and a roadmap for the irrigation drainage settlement formally agreed to by federal and Westlands officials the day before.

Years in the making, the settlement relieves the federal government of its obligation to provide drainage for Westlands’ farms. Federal officials now peg the constantly escalating overall cost of that drainage at upward of $3.5 billion.

The 600,000-acre Westlands district will assume responsibility for providing the drainage that takes away tainted irrigation water.

.Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Estevan López

In turn, Westlands will be forgiven the rest of its capital cost debt owed for construction of Central Valley Project irrigation facilities. Interior Department officials now estimate the debt to be forgiven at upward of $375 million.

Myriad other provisions are included in the 10-page settlement plus attachments made public Wednesday, including Westlands agreeing to pay Michael Etchegoinberry and other farmers who filed a class-action lawsuit against the Interior Department. The farmers argued the failure to provide drainage so damaged the land that it amounted to a government taking.

Westlands also agreed to retire at least 100,000 acres of farmland, although the district can count toward the total some land already taken out of production. Westlands would gain ownership of the federal pipes, canals and pumping plants serving the district.

Congress should pass the necessary legislation by January 2017, according to the settlement. If it doesn’t, either the government or Westlands can nullify the deal unless they agree to an extension. As part of the legal package submitted Wednesday, officials included a six-page draft of the proposed bill.

In a statement, Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Estevan López said the settlement avoids a “court-imposed obligation (that) would jeopardize important investments in conservation, environmental restoration and water infrastructure.”

The Capitol Hill undercurrents, though, could get tricky.

“The best thing that could happen would be for us to take the time to understand the implications of this,” Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., said in an interview Wednesday, “but my guess is that they will try to ram it into must-pass legislation, and that would be a mistake.”

Another lawmaker who represents part of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., called the settlement an “outrageous windfall for Westlands” and vowed to “ask the tough questions necessary when California's largest and very profitable water district is absolved of its obligations at the expense of taxpayers and the environment."

Westlands will enter the arena with certain advantages, including a Washington, D.C. advance team that includes, records show, four separate lobbying firms and several former members of Congress.

A potentially crucial player, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, has not yet publicly committed herself, though she noted Wednesday that the drainage issue “has lingered for decades and needs to be resolved.”

“From what I’ve seen, the settlement agreed to by Westlands and the Department of the Interior is very complex and my staff and I are reviewing all the details and ramifications,” Feinstein said in a statement.

Feinstein’s Democratic colleague, Sen. Barbar Boxer, is also still reviewing the proposal, Boxer’s spokesman Zachary Coile said.

In the House, Costa anticipates introducing the settlement bill along with Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif.

Any action might take a while.

After an 18-year legal battle, negotiators in September 2006 reached a deal to restore salmon to the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam. Legislation implementing the settlement was first introduced in December 2007.

In March 2009, the San Joaquin River legislation finally reached the White House as part of a larger package.

Since then, the San Joaquin River restoration costs have risen and the performance fallen short of what lawmakers had envisioned.

 

 

1-22-13

McClatchy DC

Westlands Water District’s $1 billion claim against U.S. rejected

A federal court has quietly dismissed a $1 billion claim by the well-known Westlands Water District, leaving unresolved the long-standing problem of coping with irrigation drainage in California’s San Joaquin Valley.

By Michael Doyle - McClatchy Newspapers

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24743569.html

 

A federal court has quietly dismissed a $1 billion claim by the well-known Westlands Water District, leaving unresolved the long-standing problem of coping with irrigation drainage in California’s San Joaquin Valley.

Wading carefully into one of the West’s muddiest controversies, a U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge rejected arguments by Westlands, the nation’s largest water district, that the federal government should pay for failing to build a drainage system that carries away used irrigation water. The failure has vexed farmers and officials alike for several decades and incited multiple lawsuits.

In her 56-page ruling, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Emily C. Hewitt largely avoided the immense political, agricultural and environmental consequences. Instead, Hewitt reasoned that Westlands’ lawsuit, filed last February, failed for a combination of technical legal reasons, including her court’s limited jurisdiction and the expiration of a six-year statute of limitation.

“All the events that would fix the liability of the government with regard to any breach of the (contracts) . . . would have occurred before 2006, outside the limitations period,” Hewitt said at one point.

Moreover, Hewitt, in her decision issued Jan. 15, specifically rejected several of Westlands’ claims that the federal government was legally obligated under multiple contracts dating to the 1960s to complete a drainage system.

“Because (Westlands) failed to show that drainage service was a bargained-for benefit of any of these contracts, (Westlands) has not shown that drainage service is a ‘fruit’ of any of the contracts,” she reasoned.

Craig Manson, the general counsel for Westlands, said Tuesday that the water district was evaluating its future options and stressed that it “will press” the government to provide drainage. A separate lawsuit filed by individual Westlands farmers, relying on different legal arguments, is still pending before the claims court.

“We still believe we have a viable claim against the government for failure to provide drainage service,” Manson said in a telephone interview.

Serving some 600,000 acres, Westlands is also one of the most politically potent water districts. Manson is a former top Interior Department official, and the district hired the Denver-based law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck to file the claims court lawsuit. The Washington court handles cases that involve financial claims against the federal government.

From the start, Westlands’ lawyers underscored the high stakes.

“In the end, this is the never-ending story of the United States government simply running away from a mammoth problem it, itself, created by failing to perform its statutory and contractual obligations,” attorney Lawrence W. Treece wrote in the water district’s initial brief.

Congress set the trains in motion in 1960 when it authorized the San Luis Unit of the vast Central Valley Project network of dams and canals. As part of the overall project to deliver irrigation water, lawmakers included a drainage system to dispose of the saline water that accumulates beneath irrigated land.

At one point, federal officials directed the drainage to Kesterson Reservoir in western Merced County in California’s agriculturally rich Central Valley. Because the planned drain was never completed to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the toxic water piled up at Kesterson, poisoning birds and other wildlife until the Interior Department shut it down in the mid-1980s. Subsequent efforts to find a lasting solution have failed.

As an alternative to its $1 billion claim, Westlands asked that its future water-contract payments be reduced to account for the government’s contractual failures.

Hewitt disputed Westlands’ contention that the language of several contracts dating to 1963 constitutes a legal obligation of the federal government to construct a drainage system.

“At most it represents defendant’s prediction or intent that the interceptor drain will provide service to Westlands in the future,” Hewitt said of the language in one contract, adding that “government representations are not binding contractual obligations unless stated as an undertaking rather than an intention.”

Complicating the picture, a different federal court previously ruled that the federal government had “a duty to provide drainage service” to Westlands. This earlier ruling, though, focused on a “statutory” duty imposed by the 1960 law authorizing the San Luis Unit, and it’s different from a contractual duty. This earlier ruling, Hewitt added, also didn’t specify what kind of drainage must be provided.


<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

9-18-15

Office of Congressman John Garamendi

Northern California Congressmembers Criticize Agreement Between Interior Department and Westlands Water District

Agreement, negotiated in secret, lacks financial and environmental accountability

http://yubanet.com/california/Northern-California-Congressmembers-Criticize-Agreement-Between-Interior-Department-and-Westlands-Water-District.php#.Vf3MG_lVhBc

WASHINGTON, DC, Sept. 17, 2015 - Today, a group of four Members of Congress from Northern California sharply criticized the recent agreement negotiated between the Department of the Interior and the Westlands Water District in California’s Central Valley. The agreement, negotiated in secret with little public input or accountability, was designed to settle litigation over the need to provide drainage to selenium-impaired farmland, but is deeply flawed. It would guarantee Westlands a permanent water contract with no ongoing environmental review, potentially leave taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars, and provide inadequate oversight over the drainage issue the agreement was designed to settle. 

“I am deeply concerned by the secrecy and lack of accountability in this agreement,” said Congressman John Garamendi of California’s 3rd District. “This agreement will have a significant environmental and financial impact on California’s economy and environment. It forgives hundreds of millions of dollars that the district owes the government, and it might give Westlands even greater access to our water supply. But it will end up rammed through Congress with hardly any time for public input or scrutiny.”

“In short, this agreement is a bad deal,” said Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA). “This deal, negotiated in secret, gives Westlands a permanent water contract, among other concessions, which precludes any further environmental review or contract renewals. In return, Westlands will retire 100,000 acres of farmland, but that still leaves nearly 300,000 acres of impaired lands open to irrigation, opening the door to further pollution of our rivers and streams. The agreement includes no stipulations for oversight of drainage operations and no metrics by which to measure Westland’s compliance. While this brings an end to a long-standing dispute that had to be resolved, the concessions of this agreement go too far, placing our communities, water supply, and environment at risk.”

“I am troubled that the settlement does not fully address underlying drainage concerns, does not retire enough of the drainage impaired-lands, and may result in reduced water allocations for other Central Valley Project Contractors, including residents of my Congressional District. The settlement deserves a thoughtful and thorough evaluation before it is voted on in the House of Representatives,” said Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA).

“The Department of Interior settlement agreement with the Westlands Water District is a short-term resolution of the legal problems between the parties,” said Congresswoman Doris Matsui (D-CA). In the long run, however, the settlement will allow Westlands to keep farming the same land with the same drainage problems, but now their water rights are in perpetuity. How does this help solve California’s water problems? Simply put, it doesn’t, it just perpetuates them. The Department of Interior can do better by holding federal water users accountable.”

Representatives Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Jerry McNerney (D-CA) have also expressed their concerns about the agreement in separate statements. Congress must still approve the agreement, but a vote has not yet been scheduled.

 

| »

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.

To manage site Login